ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:and somebody called Alistair from the Monster Raving Looney Party (dressed as if he thought yesterday not today was Paddies' Day).
More on him here:http://votemadhatter.blogspot.co.uk/He is clearly just using the Monster Raving Looney Party label to publicise his Alice in Wonderland Walking Tour of Oxford. Presumably he regards £500 as cheap price to pay for the publicity. A shrewd businessman then. He has stood in local elections there before. Insofar as he says anything political he's appealing for the protest vote.
Seventy people turned out last night for the hustings organised in central Oxford for both Oxford constituencies by the Council of Faiths. They heard 9 candidates from the two constiruencies, including both of ours (Mike Foster and Kevin Parkin) make a short statement and answer questions. Two other individuals said from the floor that they would be standing in Oxdord East, an Independent who has stood before and somebody called Alistair from the Monster Raving Looney Party (dressed as if he thought yesterday not today was Paddies' Day). No show or sign of the TUSC candidate.Andrew Smith, the sitting MP fot Oxford East, said he had made a mistake in voting for the Iraq War. The Green candidate said "Tax the Rich" (2% wealth tax on any wealth over £3million) to pay for green reforms. The UKIP candidate managed to put over that UKIP was not just a single issue party but a party advocating empty promises on everything like the other parties. The Tories were not represented by the MP for Oxford West (she said she was in the House of Commons) but by a stand-in. Can't remember what the LibDem said. The biggest round of applause went to the National Health Action Party, a doctor who spoke passionately against the privatisation of the NHS. The two Socialist candidates put the case for socialism. Nobody was against same sex marriages. Everybody except the Greens, the NHAP and us was for the imposition of border controls on people leaving the UK (watch out for longer queues if you're holidaying abroad this year). Also present were three other Party members and three Socialist Standard subscribers.
stuartw2112 wrote:I'm not of course against trying to change the agenda.Nor am I. Isn't that what we should be trying to do and, in fact of course, what we in the Socialist Party are doing by our current election campaign. We can't just sit back and let pro-capitalist politicians set the agenda even if they are to a large extent reflecting popular opinion (or indifference).
stuartw2112 wrote:Nothing wrong with that – but it will not lead to the collapse of capitalism. And a damn good thing too since capitalism is how the world makes its living, and no alternative is on the agenda nor will be for the foreseeable future.So what do we do then? Just try to make the best we can of capitalism? Or even try to stop it collapsing (as the Greek finance minister is said he's trying to do)? Rather pessimistic and not very inspiring.
Richard wrote:Consumerism keeps capitalism humming happily along.Isn't it rather the other way round, i.e that capitalism keeps consumerism humming along? After all, the aim of production under capitalism is not to meet consumers' needs but to make profits from which to accumulate more capital. Given this, consumption is a by-product of the accumulation of capital not its driving motor. What would cause capitalism to collapse would be if capitalist firms refused to invest for profits but there's a fat chance of that happening, though it does happen from time to time. Hence the regular occurence of slumps, some big, some small.Incidentally, the term "consumerism" has a dubious origin. It was first put forward as an alternative name to capitalism for the present economic system:
Quote:In a 1955 speech, John Bugas (number two at Ford Motor Company) coined the term "consumerism" as a substitute for "capitalism" to better describe the American economy:[7]“The term "consumerism" would pin the tag where it actually belongs—on Mr. Consumer, the real boss and beneficiary of the American system. It would pull the rug right out from under our unfriendly critics who have blasted away so long and loud at capitalism. Somehow, I just can't picture them shouting: "Down with the consumers!"[8]Bugas turned out to be wrong as there are now people who are saying "Down with consumerism" if not "Down with the consumers". Having said this, it is true that under capitalism there is a lot of wasteful consumption.
Richard wrote:Don't buy anything beyond what you need for basic comfort. If we could all do this then capitalism would collapse overnight!Not too sure about that, Richard. And if it did I don't think the result would necessarily be socialism.If we did it, more likely that capitalist employers would say "good, now we don't need to pay our workers so much" !
alanjjohnstone wrote:i think we don't often emphasise that there is an important time factor. If tomorrow tax taken from your pay was raised to a third then we would suffer a pay-cut and have less spending power.True, but it works both ways. Workers benefit, albeit temporarily, from a tax cut, as a LibDem leaflet that came through my door yesterday claims:
Quote:£800 tax cut. 53, 100 people in Richmond Park and North Kingston have benefited from the Lib Dems raising of the income tax threshold. Nobody will pay any income tax on the first £10, 500 they earn.This is true too, though of course it will eventually be eaten away by inflation (and was in fact compensation for past inflation). But if we go down this road we can't have it both ways.
Even state-capitalist and so-called "Marxist" China practises superstitious animal sacrifice:http://www.newsbangladesh.com/english/Padma%20Bridge%20piling%20work%20begins%20thru%60%20sacrifice%20of%20animals/76Which shows of course that the regime there has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism.
It seems we're not the only people discussing this:http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-decliningAnd I thought Pinker was a pessimist …
alanjjohnstone wrote:I have seen some sad cases of suffering cows that cannot be put down by a vet due to religious custom.So has my brother. Fortunately he could put this one down:http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/27/ruralaffairs.topstories3
This exchange of emails with the Electoral Commission explains the rather narrow circumstances in which legal action could be taken or, rather, a complaint made that the regulations have been breached. Other than that we've got to rely on arguments based on fair play and the democratic principle that all the candidates in an election should have equal time.This arose out of the hustings organised in Oxford by the Federation of Small Businesses. We wrote asking if, in the Electoral Commission's view, in view of the reasons given by the FSB, this should be regarded as a "selective" hustings.
Quote:A non-selective hustings is a hustings which will not reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or oppose particular policies or issues. If a hustings is non-selective, it will not be regulated. The best way to ensure that a hustings is non-selective is to invite all of the political parties standing in a constituency and give them an equal opportunity to participate.If it is not practical for an organiser to invite all parties, they should be able to give impartial reasons as to why they have not invited other parties. Our good practice recommendations on page 6 of the hustings guidance give some examples of impartial reasons. An impartial reason could, for example, be that you have invited the three parties with the most MPs. In their email, Robyn Bourne explained that they based their reasons on the results of the 2010election as well as current national polling data. These reasons are impartial reasons.We replied:
Quote:Thanks, but this interpretation of yours permits virtually anything:"An impartial reason could, for example, be that you have invited the three parties with the most MPs. In their email, Robyn Bourne explained that they based their reasons on the results of the 2010 election as well as current national polling data. These reasons are impartial reasons."We can't agree that the first could be regarded as an impartial reason. It would be hard to think of anything more partial except perhaps to invite only the two parties whose leader has a chance of becoming Prime Minister.Allowing such a decision as impartial opens the door to discrimination against parties as long as you can think of a general principle that excludes them.As regards the reason invoked by Robyn Bourne, that's not so bad but they would need to explain to parties not invited what the exactly were the criteria for judging the results and polling data. They did not do this.Finally, we would like to ask to whom should be addressed any complaint that an allegedly non-selective hustings was in fact a selective one and who makes a decision on this.They came back:
Quote:As previously stated, in some instances it may not be practical for an organiser to invite all of the parties or candidates standing to their hustings. In these instances, if the organiser provides impartial reasons as to why certain parties or candidates have been invited while others have not, the event will not be regulated, as it cannot be reasonably regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidatesI note from the emails below that the Federation of Small Business explained that they had to ‘cap the number of speaking places on the panel in the interests of running an efficient event’. In line with our guidance, they appear to have made a decision about who to invite based on the results of the last election and current polling data. The Electoral Commission makes decisions in response to complaints as to whether an event is regulated, this will include decisions about whether a hustings is non selective, taking account of all circumstances. Please see our guidance here for more information on making an allegation. Please note allegations must have some supporting evidence. I would also advise that you read our guidance on non-party campaigning as spending on any single hustings event is not likely to reach the threshold that requires a non-party campaigner to register with us. It is not against the rules to hold a selective hustings, a breach of any rules will only occur when the spending of a non-party campaigner goes above the threshold and the non-party campaigner does not register with us and the spending is not properly reported. Spending in relation to a selective hustings may in some circumstances need to be reported as candidate or party spending. Again a breach will not occur unless this spending does not appear in the appropriate returns.Here's a sympathiser's report of what happened at the selective hustings organised by the Fawcett Society at Ruskin College in Oxford last night at which we were no-platformed:
Quote:Had a successful intervention at Ruskin. Here below is a report of my intervention which I have just sent to some Ruskin staff who I know, some of whom attended the hustings.It is disappointing that such no-platforming of socialists is happening but it is reflective of the power of bourgeois ideology in this period.PhilDear all, I attended the Fawcett Society general election hustings tonight at Ruskin in order to make the meeting aware that the candidates of two organisations – the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition – were not present. This was because the Fawcett Society had taken a decision that only candidates of parties that had MPs in parliament were to be invited. I pointed out that when one considers that 40 percent of the population did not vote at the last general election and more than 10 per cent voted for parties that do not have any MPs, what the Fawcett Society are effectively saying is that they care not a jot for the opinions of more than 50 per cent of the population. My question to the Fawcett Society was, "How are you defending the interests of all those women who want to vote for explicitly socialist parties or who merely don't want to vote for any pro-capitalist party?". This question remains on the table. I was rather unpleasantly shouted down by some low-culture people, mainly women, with middle class prejudices. But having more or less made my point to the meeting I then left because I had another meeting to go to, and because I do not wish to spend my time listening to politicians from pro-capitalist parties. I would be interested to know whether the Fawcett Society also no-platformed the other minority parties such as the NHS party? Also, as I left the building I was spoken to by someone who seemed like a porter (hope I'm not doing him an injustice) who told me that he had been informed by "a member of staff" that I am banned from the building. I have no knowledge of such a ban. Can someone please clue me in as to what has been going on?Some good arguments for us to use at other hustings where we are no-platformed.
It wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened. After the general elections in 1910 the Irish Nationalists virtually held the balance of power between the Liberals and Tories and a Liberal government was formed with Irish Nationalist support. Let's hope it's true that when history repeats itself the second time is a farce. Luckily, it probably will be.
Is it this you are looking for:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22073434
